Appeal No. 2005-1988
Application No. 09/822,651
Hence, the issue before us is claim interpretation. We note
that we interpret claims by giving the terms thereof the broadest
reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage as they would
be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the
written description in the specification, unless another meaning
is intended by appellants as established in the written
description of the specification, and without reading into the
claims, any limitation or particular embodiment disclosed in the
specification. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir.
1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322
(Fed. Cir. 1989).
With regard to the claimed phrase “a plurality of discrete
polymeric regions”, appellants’ Figure 1 shows discrete polymeric
regions 14. On page 4 of appellants’ specification, the
specification discloses that Figure 1 shows “a web 10 having
stems 12 arranged in numerous patches or regions 14 on web
surface 18”. The examiner views each row of fused loops 22
(Figure 2 of Thomas) as a discrete polymeric region. We agree
with the examiner’s position. There is nothing in appellants’
specification that specifically limits regions 14 to a particular
arrangement of stems that occupy region 14. The examiner views
the row of loop components 22 in Thomas as a region because there
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007